438 MICHAEL E. STOCK 



or badly proposed, they necessarily become upon adoption 

 repressive and destructive. Herein is evidence of some of the 

 qualities Freud found in the superego. 



The defect of the norms of conscience as proposed by parents 

 can arise in a number of ways. The rules themselves can be 

 too demanding, compelling an adherence to stricter standards 

 of self-discipline or self-denial than is reasonable, forbidding 

 things which in themselves are legitimate and useful. The 

 classic in this field is the Puritan code of standards, which even- 

 tually outlawed all normal human satisfactions and pleasures. ^^ 



Even if the standards imposed are not in themselves un- 

 reasonable, they may be unreasonably imposed. They may 

 demand too much from the child too quickly, from ignorance 

 of the relative weakness of the young mind; there may be too 

 much punishment, too strict an adherence to the letter of the 

 law, too little legitimate indulgence, no allowance for circum- 

 stances, no sense of the patience needed to train chidlren. 

 Or they might be too laxly proposed, or too confusedly, some- 

 times strictly, sometimes laxly. The child will learn what to 

 do, but not how to do it; he will not know what to expect of 

 himself, and later, what to expect of others. All the norms 

 proposed might be reasonable except one — how to respond to 

 norms. 



The corruption of moral standards can also come about when 

 parents over-extend the legitimate scope of their action, giving 

 direction where they cannot actually benefit their children, 

 exercising authority in matters which are no more than matters 

 of taste, keeping the reins of authority over the growing chil- 

 dren too long, or even invading the legitimate areas of self- 



^' Why anyone would come to adopt such strict standards is a complicated ques- 

 tion. It may come from ignorance, from a misinterpretation of human nature, or it 

 may come from weakness, as an overcompensation for an unadmitted (perhaps 

 inadmissible) personal weakness, or there may be elements of malice in it, as the 

 desire to use power to dominate rather than to serve. In any case, the defects of 

 those who are charged with forming the consciences of the young are not under 

 judgment here, nor in the cases mentioned below; they may be wholly involuntary 

 and free of personal guilt. Their effect nevertheless will be the same. 



